It's actually an interesting philosophical debate. Some claim that the "marginal constituency effect" is an emergent property of the system, where I see it as basically gerrymandered in.
I contend that it's the way rural constituencies are drawn up that tends to give the Tories more safe seats than you would expect.
You cannot afford to vote for what you want, you must simply vote most tactically against what you hate. the lib dems have always been under-represented in parliament for their share of the vote because of FPTP and it would be nice to see a different system that took voting preferences into account keep to the Fen Causeway
Most people think that as long as they vote, they're living in a democracy.
The fact that all of the representatives they're voting for represent the same interests - either overtly and covertly - is a subtlety which is getting less and less easy to miss.
Besides, policy isn't set by MPs - as if - it's set top-down by the PM and by Whitehall 'advising' ministers, most of whom are clueless and few of whom have time to get up to speed on their temporary specialities before they're moved on.
Whitehall is infested by lobbyists and revolving door special interest groups, and I'd guess the culture isn't what you'd call proletarian.
So - the peasants think that the four year pageant cycle means the pretendy Wendy House parliament matters. But real government is happening elsewhere, and it's both defensive towards and contemptuous of the wishes of the unwashed - even though once in a while it throws them a bone to keep them quiet.
National election XXXXXXXXXXXX
Local election xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This is your lifetime supply of democracy please do not steal the pencil. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
